ps3 attempting something new-read this and understand

I get it. The cell processor was designed to be able to incorporate cinematic style gameplay. It's ahead of it's time actually. Intel if you look at their roadmap has processors similar to the cell's design years from now. Intel usually calls the shots and I think that will continue as far as when processors go to mainstream audiences and pc's. We are seeing a shift here though. The cell is actually ahead of it's time, and is not meant for general purpose computing but it is great for video decoding and certain tasks that do apply to games.

Look at uncharted 2 for example. Watch this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSq_39-Yj6c&fmt=18

Watch the God of War preview and watch how it seamlessly goes between cinematic cutscene and gameplay all in realtime

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hiieqlgbn2c

Check out MGSIV, Killzone 2, Heavy Rain etc.. There is a trend here

The 360 is equipped with a tri-core processor and a beefed up graphics card and a dvd drive which is suitable for todays gaming needs. But it's also a lot of the smae and just graphic pushing. You are not able to get a cinematic gaming experience from the 360. Gears attempts this but it is not pushing the envelope int hat area at all. If you look at 360 games there is a difference in the style of game that is being developed. This change needed to occur because you can only push so many graphics. Games like Halo, Gears, BAnjo are pushing the envelope as far as rendering certain things but you can only go so far with that. They have good graphics but nothing there is really new a showstopper.

People saying the cell is not designed for games and is not strong when it comes to general purpose functions don't get it.

I also suggest people read this article from anandtech which explains the cell processor.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2379&p=8

Coupling the cell with blu-ray was a decision made by sony to jump ahead of the curve and we are starting to see this stuff in their games. So saying it isn't there isn't correct at all. I'm not saying hte cell is the end all be all here or is going to create a shift. If anything the cell is ahead of it's time and will probably go by the wayside ultimately in favor of an intel processor with similar design. Intel calls the shots in the processor department. The cell is currently being designed on a 90nm die and Intel has similar processors being designed that are on a 32 nm die and have the appropriate ppe to be able to deal with more general purpose tasks that will be more applicable to the general public, but for gaming and what Sony is offering the ps3 is offering something no other console can right now.

People are at a point and you hear people say games are all the same these days and aren't as fun anymore. There is a reason for that. You hear people say the 360 is all about blood and gore and packing as much nonsense action on the screen that you can. A change is needed and more advanced physics and logic and graphics are all apart of that. Games are changing and are going to go more the way of a full cinematic experience and Sony understands this and is ahead of the curve.

I'm just tired of people saying the ps3 is not designed for games and the cell doesn't work well with them. It's 2009 and look at the games coming. They are much more impressive on the ps3 then anything on the 360. It's not even close. People saying there is nothing in a real world example that proves this are full of it at this point.

It's 2009 and look at the games coming. They are much more impressive on the ps3 then anything on the 360. It's not even close.Walker34

*bows down and worships Cell* I am not worthy....I am not worthy!!

Dude you remind me of that movie that came out in the 70's or 60's called "year 2000" and it had people in like flying cars and everyone had a super computer... I think your taking the Cell a wee bit to seriously. Sure it has 8 processors but remember no one wants to program for it.

Dude you remind me of that movie that came out in the 70's or 60's called "year 2000" and it had people in like flying cars and everyone had a super computer... I think your taking the Cell a wee bit to seriously. Sure it has 8 processors but remember no one wants to program for it.

wishbone345

How am I taking it too seriously? I never said the cell was the end all be all. If anything i said hte opposite. I just understand what is going on is all. You should try it sometime. You are the one assuming I'm saying the cell is the end all be all and this great supercomputer and bow down and worship it. Talk about taking things too seriously. Try reading what i said instead of assuming things? Just because what I said goes against your 360 fanboyism. Talk about taking things too seriously.

You are not able to get a cinematic gaming experience from the 360. Gears attempts this but it is not pushing the envelope int hat area at all.Walker34

I'd have to agree that PS3 games are way more cinematic than 360's though. And it does seem the PS3 is pushing further and further ahead of the 360. That new Uncharted 2 vid was crazy.

[QUOTE="Walker34"]You are not able to get a cinematic gaming experience from the 360. Gears attempts this but it is not pushing the envelope int hat area at all.angelkimne

Bad examples. Mass Effect does attempt this. Good example. The 360 also chugs like a **** in that game. There is noticeable popin whenever texture loads and serious framerate issues when trying to incorporate a lot of things. The 360 hardware can't handle it. That's my point. A game like Mass Effect would actually run a lot better on the ps3's hardware.

Watch the cutscenes in mass effect and they are not smooth at all. When i first got a ps3 the first thing i noticed was the difference in cinematics and how mass effect which was one of the more imrpessive 360 games seemed to chug along. If Sony is smart they would be trying to get mass effect 2 over to their system as a comparison because it's the perfect kind of game that could take advantage of blu-ray and the cell. I honestly think getting bioshock was developing an alliance with bioware and just getting them to test the waters. Mass EFfect 2 might be next unless microsoft releases a new console that can do these things.

[QUOTE="angelkimne"][QUOTE="Walker34"]You are not able to get a cinematic gaming experience from the 360. Gears attempts this but it is not pushing the envelope int hat area at all.Walker34

Bad examples. Mass Effect does attempt this. Good example. The 360 also chugs like a **** in that game. There is noticeable popin whenever texture loads and serious framerate issues when trying to incorporate a lot of things. The 360 hardware can't handle it. That's my point.

[QUOTE="angelkimne"][QUOTE="Walker34"]You are not able to get a cinematic gaming experience from the 360. Gears attempts this but it is not pushing the envelope int hat area at all.Walker34

Bad examples. Mass Effect does attempt this. Good example. The 360 also chugs like a **** in that game. There is noticeable popin whenever texture loads and serious framerate issues when trying to incorporate a lot of things. The 360 hardware can't handle it. That's my point. A game like Mass Effect would actually run a lot better on the ps3's hardware.

Watch the cutscenes in mass effect and they are not smooth at all. When i first got a ps3 the first thing i noticed was the difference in cinematics and how mass effect which was one of the more imrpessive 360 games seemed to chug along. If Sony is smart they would be trying to get mass effect 2 over to their system as a comparison because it's the perfect kind of game that could take advantage of blu-ray and the cell.

alan wake is also going to be dumbed down on the 360. The 360 is maxed at this point as far as what it can do in this area as far as decoding certain things. Alan Wake has been in development for how long because i'm sure the 360 is not cooperating.

for the billikons of dollars and 100, 000 of work hours it better be do crazy stuff like this.

[QUOTE="Walker34"]

[QUOTE="angelkimne"]Bad example. Try Mass Effect, Halo 3, Lost Odyssey, The Orange Box, Bioshock, Dead Space, Assassins Creed, Mirrors Edge.... Though yes, the most and best cinematic gaming experience this gen is a certain Ps3 exclusive AAAA...daveg1

Bad examples. Mass Effect does attempt this. Good example. The 360 also chugs like a **** in that game. There is noticeable popin whenever texture loads and serious framerate issues when trying to incorporate a lot of things. The 360 hardware can't handle it. That's my point. A game like Mass Effect would actually run a lot better on the ps3's hardware.

Watch the cutscenes in mass effect and they are not smooth at all. When i first got a ps3 the first thing i noticed was the difference in cinematics and how mass effect which was one of the more imrpessive 360 games seemed to chug along. If Sony is smart they would be trying to get mass effect 2 over to their system as a comparison because it's the perfect kind of game that could take advantage of blu-ray and the cell.

I'm actually the only person here who does. That is what is funny. I'm not talking about cinematics in the old sense of the word. I'm talking about how this can be utilized in a lot of different ways and how the ps3 can decode things on the fly. WAtch the uncharted video. Did you watch any of the the vids i posted or read that article? WAtch the god of war video. There is a ton of stuff going on that adds to a cinematic experience which hte 360 is not capable of.

WAtch the scene in uncharted with the truck chasing him down the alley. There is no way the 360 can even dream of doing something like that from the voiceovers to everything in between that adds up.

The 360 is oldschool and is actually from the year 2000. It's a graphics pusher and it's completely oldschool in the way games play out. The ps3 is something else entirely. Play banjo or halo sometime and really look at it and what it's doing then look at uncharted 2. It's not even a comparison. The ps3 is doing something completely different.

Anyone who thinks the 360 is better hardware is from the year 2000 not the other way around. It's not even close.

oh god...the last thing games need to be is more bloody cinematic. games are games...not dam movie wannabes. in my book a game with alot of cutscenes is an indication that the dev is either ashamed that they are making games and they wanted to make movies or considers games as an inferior form of entertainment compared to movies and that games should try and emulate movies. spielberg recently blurted out that games and movies will merge. if that ever happens....it will be a very very dark day indeed. theres a reason why good games make terrible movies and great movies make terrible games...they are incompatible at a fundimental level. a little less yapping and a little more thinking about gameplay and the industry will be all the better for it. cinematic gaming...the concept is a farce.osan0

Again i'm not talking about cutscenes. I'm talking about how it applies to games. You guys don't get it lol. The ps3 is creating some of the most immersive games to date and you are missing it because you're a fanboy.

[QUOTE="osan0"]oh god...the last thing games need to be is more bloody cinematic. games are games...not dam movie wannabes. in my book a game with alot of cutscenes is an indication that the dev is either ashamed that they are making games and they wanted to make movies or considers games as an inferior form of entertainment compared to movies and that games should try and emulate movies. spielberg recently blurted out that games and movies will merge. if that ever happens....it will be a very very dark day indeed. theres a reason why good games make terrible movies and great movies make terrible games...they are incompatible at a fundimental level. a little less yapping and a little more thinking about gameplay and the industry will be all the better for it. cinematic gaming...the concept is a farce.Walker34

Again i'm not talking about cutscenes. I'm talking about how it applies to games. You guys don't get it lol.

[QUOTE="Walker34"]

[QUOTE="osan0"]oh god...the last thing games need to be is more bloody cinematic. games are games...not dam movie wannabes. in my book a game with alot of cutscenes is an indication that the dev is either ashamed that they are making games and they wanted to make movies or considers games as an inferior form of entertainment compared to movies and that games should try and emulate movies. spielberg recently blurted out that games and movies will merge. if that ever happens....it will be a very very dark day indeed. theres a reason why good games make terrible movies and great movies make terrible games...they are incompatible at a fundimental level. a little less yapping and a little more thinking about gameplay and the industry will be all the better for it. cinematic gaming...the concept is a farce.osan0

Again i'm not talking about cutscenes. I'm talking about how it applies to games. You guys don't get it lol.

That's a load of fluff. Tell me any game on the 360 that is doing this. I can list several on the ps3

uncharted 2

god of war 3

killzone 2

mgsiv

Heavy Rain

and there are more...... Infamous, LBP are more generic action and platform games but are impressive in their own right but aren't doing what i'm talking about per sey....

Watch the uncharted 2 video and tell me any game on the 360 that does what that game is doing. It can't.

apart from maybe MGS4(most overrated game ever IMO)what other immersive games are you on about? pretty graphics doesnt make a good game am afraid!!!!!!

FFS world of warcraft is more immersive then anything on both the 360 and the ps3 and you dont need anything half as powerful as them to run it.

apart from maybe MGS4(most overrated game ever IMO)what other immersive games are you on about? pretty graphics doesnt make a good game am afraid!!!!!!

FFS world of warcraft is more immersive then anything on both the 360 and the ps3 and you dont need anything half as powerful as them to run it.

p0g0theclown

Exactly pretty graphics doesnt make a game. It's a lot of things and like i'm saying the 360 is the graphics pusher and can actually push more impressive visuals to the screen but it's limited as far as what it can do with those graphics. It has a superior gpu. Again you guys don't get what i'm saying at all. Where did i say pretty graphics. I actually said the 360 is the graphics pusher.

No warcraft doesnt take a great machine to run it, but it does take a ton of ram. It's a completely different game and genre. We are talking abotu consoles here and what this tech is ultimately going to be able to do on a larger scale is something else but will apply ultimately.

Intel didn't use these "features" because it isn't helpful at the moment; not because they didn't think of it or couldn't accomplish it. Programmers are barely able to handle two cores much less four or more.

apart from maybe MGS4(most overrated game ever IMO)what other immersive games are you on about? pretty graphics doesnt make a good game am afraid!!!!!!

FFS world of warcraft is more immersive then anything on both the 360 and the ps3 and you dont need anything half as powerful as them to run it.

p0g0theclown

[QUOTE="osan0"]oh god...the last thing games need to be is more bloody cinematic. games are games...not dam movie wannabes. in my book a game with alot of cutscenes is an indication that the dev is either ashamed that they are making games and they wanted to make movies or considers games as an inferior form of entertainment compared to movies and that games should try and emulate movies. spielberg recently blurted out that games and movies will merge. if that ever happens....it will be a very very dark day indeed. theres a reason why good games make terrible movies and great movies make terrible games...they are incompatible at a fundimental level. a little less yapping and a little more thinking about gameplay and the industry will be all the better for it. cinematic gaming...the concept is a farce.Walker34

Again i'm not talking about cutscenes. I'm talking about how it applies to games. You guys don't get it lol. The ps3 is creating some of the most immersive games to date and you are missing it because you're a fanboy.

[QUOTE="p0g0theclown"]

apart from maybe MGS4(most overrated game ever IMO)what other immersive games are you on about? pretty graphics doesnt make a good game am afraid!!!!!!

FFS world of warcraft is more immersive then anything on both the 360 and the ps3 and you dont need anything half as powerful as them to run it.

thegoldenpoo

more immersive then WOW really? i cant comment on dead space but bioshock atmospheric yes but immersive it wasnt imo

Tell me any game on the 360 that is doing this.Walker34

i cant because they are all exclusive.....there is simply no direct way to compare them. there is no evidence to suggest that the 360 could or couldnt do it. all we have when measuring capability of both consoles is multiplats. unless u want to go by dev commentary? but thats about as reliable as some random dude on a forum...there hardly going to admit that there game would work fine on a competitors platform. show me a PS3 playing gears1 and 2 or Halo 3 or forza 2 and 3. u cant...u can only speculate that those games would run on a PS3 (and for the record, yes the PS3 could play those games if properly ported id imagine). ive played all of those games on my PS3 bar uncharted 2 and GOW3 and infamous (since they aint out as far as i know :P) and there great looking games. but theres nothing about them that tells me "wow...there is no way a 360 could run that". MGS4 would need a few discs and wouldnt need to be installed...thats about it. could the 360 run the likes of killzone 2? if i had to guess id say yes. given enough time and money to basically rebuild all the tech for the 360, it could produce those same results. but the bottom line is i cant say with 100% certainty that those games could run on the 360 (just like i cant say that gears 2 could run on a PS3). im not a developer..i dont have a dev kit. all i have to go on is public information and my own judgement. and for the record, u cant say with certainty that Game X couldnt run on the 360 because like me and everyone else on this board...u dont have the kind of in depth knowledge and experience of an industry veteran. like me, u can only guess. quick question though....do u honestly believe that uncharted 1 only used 30-40% of the PS3s processing power?osan0

I can say that because the style of games being developed solely for the ps3 are very different and it's noticeable and there are trends/aspects to them that apply to th e ps3 and it's hardware. Look at those games i posted and their videos and tell me where i can find games that do those kind of things at that level on the 360. You can't because it can't. I don't care if someone says halo. It doesnt do anything close to that. Mass EFfect tried and does attempt certain things like this although not on the same level, but it's also a chuggy mess on the 360 which furhter proves my point. The 360's hardware xenon can not decode video like that on the fly and incorporate it into gameplay like that(cell processor excels at this) nor does it have the capacity because of blu-ray.

There's a reason why we are seeing these games on the horizon for ps3 and there is nothing coming out for the 360 that do these kind of things. The 360 has maxed its potential.

[QUOTE="osan0"]i cant because they are all exclusive.....there is simply no direct way to compare them. there is no evidence to suggest that the 360 could or couldnt do it. all we have when measuring capability of both consoles is multiplats. unless u want to go by dev commentary? but thats about as reliable as some random dude on a forum...there hardly going to admit that there game would work fine on a competitors platform. show me a PS3 playing gears1 and 2 or Halo 3 or forza 2 and 3. u cant...u can only speculate that those games would run on a PS3 (and for the record, yes the PS3 could play those games if properly ported id imagine). ive played all of those games on my PS3 bar uncharted 2 and GOW3 and infamous (since they aint out as far as i know :P) and there great looking games. but theres nothing about them that tells me "wow...there is no way a 360 could run that". MGS4 would need a few discs and wouldnt need to be installed...thats about it. could the 360 run the likes of killzone 2? if i had to guess id say yes. given enough time and money to basically rebuild all the tech for the 360, it could produce those same results. but the bottom line is i cant say with 100% certainty that those games could run on the 360 (just like i cant say that gears 2 could run on a PS3). im not a developer..i dont have a dev kit. all i have to go on is public information and my own judgement. and for the record, u cant say with certainty that Game X couldnt run on the 360 because like me and everyone else on this board...u dont have the kind of in depth knowledge and experience of an industry veteran. like me, u can only guess. quick question though....do u honestly believe that uncharted 1 only used 30-40% of the PS3s processing power?Walker34

I can say that because the style of games being developed solely for the ps3 are very different and it's noticeable and there are trends/aspects to them that apply to th e ps3 and it's hardware. Look at those games i posted and their videos and tell me where i can find games that do those kind of things at that level on the 360. You can't because it can't. I don't care if someone says halo. It doesnt do anything close to that. Mass EFfect tried and does attempt certain things like this although not on the same level, but it's also a chuggy mess on the 360 which furhter proves my point. The 360's hardware xenon can not decode video like that on the fly and incorporate it into gameplay like that(cell processor excels at this) nor does it have the capacity because of blu-ray.

There's a reason why we are seeing these games on the horizon for ps3 and there is nothing coming out for the 360 that do these kind of things. The 360 has maxed its potential.

the same STYLE of games are available on both consoles, doesnt matter how you paint the picture uncharted 2 = gears 2, killzone2 = halo 3, heavy rain = mass effect, gods of war = ninja gaiden 2, infamous= crackdown and vice versa

just because a certain game is prettier then another and has more going on on-screen doesnt make it any better

and what IF the 360 has maxed its potenial it didnt stop then ps2 making some fantasical games which was completely outpowered by the orginal xbox or do you cow forget this, power doesntbeat imagination

GTA IV was the height of older technology imo as far as what you can do with cinematics and was released on both consoles. GTA IV is actually more rendered and not decoding actual video is why it is capable of running at a higher res on the 360 due to it's more powerful gpu. The first few years and every year before have been a battle of gpu's. The advent of the gpu was huge and the advent of these kinds of processors that can decode video on the fly is as well. GTAIV actually signaled the height of gpu processed graphics the way they used to be done. GTA IV is as good as it can get on the 360. MGSIV came out at the same time and signalled something completely different and is more groundbreaking.

All I'm saying is the ps3 is capable of taking this to another level. I'm nt saying the 360 doesnt have good games and wont continue to do so and isnt' capable of these things in some fashion. It's just more of the same. The ps3 is pushing the envelope and taking this to another level is all. We are starting to see that now. It took a few years but the ps3 is capable of achieving things the 360 can't. This isn't an opinion either. It will be proven. Thats not to say you can't like your 360 and that it's not perfectly fine because by todays standards it is. But over the next few years starting at the beginning of 2009 with the release of killzone 2, the ps3 is going to exceed the 360 in technology and what it can achieve. It actually started with the release of MGSIV and the original uncharted but even those games are dated compared to what we are going to see although MGS will probably hold up.

The ps3 is pushing the envelope and taking this to another level is all. We are starting to see that now. It took a few years but the ps3 is capable of achieving things the 360 can't. This isn't an opinion either. It will be proven. Walker34

how do you know this? where are your facts, the orginal xbox was vastly more powerful then the ps2 but the game for the ps2 pushed the evelope more then the xbox did?

But over the next few years starting at the beginning of 2009 with the release of killzone 2, the ps3 is going to exceed the 360 in technology and what it can achieve.

Walker34

what has killzone 2 done that is anything special apart from pretty graphics? and uncharted how is that anyting different from gear apart from a little bit of platforming tacted on, gears copied killswitch with the cover system and that was a ps2 game

tgey need to slow the graphicas down a little bit and focus on GAMING

[QUOTE="Walker34"]

The ps3 is pushing the envelope and taking this to another level is all. We are starting to see that now. It took a few years but the ps3 is capable of achieving things the 360 can't. This isn't an opinion either. It will be proven. p0g0theclown

how do you know this? where are your facts, the orginal xbox was vastly more powerful then the ps2 but the game for the ps2 pushed the evelope more then the xbox did?

But over the next few years starting at the beginning of 2009 with the release of killzone 2, the ps3 is going to exceed the 360 in technology and what it can achieve.

Walker34

what has killzone 2 done that is anything special apart from pretty graphics?

People keep asking for facts and i already posted them. Look at the videos i posted and the article i posted and the games i listed. What more do you want? Those aren't facts? So when ever someone posts something you don't agree with you just say where are the facts even though i've actually posted facts here? lol.

[QUOTE="p0g0theclown"]

[QUOTE="Walker34"]

how do you know this? where are your facts, the orginal xbox was vastly more powerful then the ps2 but the game for the ps2 pushed the evelope more then the xbox did?

[QUOTE="Walker34"]

But over the next few years starting at the beginning of 2009 with the release of killzone 2, the ps3 is going to exceed the 360 in technology and what it can achieve.

Walker34

what has killzone 2 done that is anything special apart from pretty graphics?

People keep asking for facts and i already posted them. Look at the videos i posted and the article i posted and the games i listed. What more do you want? Those aren't facts? So when ever someone posts something you don't agree with you just say where are the facts even though i've actually posted facts here? lol.

how are these games that you are listing pushing the evelope in gaming, how are they really that different from their 360 counterpart? Those arent new genre you're posted just old ones with different ideas.

you havent posted any facts just your own opinions.

[QUOTE="Walker34"]

[QUOTE="p0g0theclown"]

what has killzone 2 done that is anything special apart from pretty graphics?

p0g0theclown

People keep asking for facts and i already posted them. Look at the videos i posted and the article i posted and the games i listed. What more do you want? Those aren't facts? So when ever someone posts something you don't agree with you just say where are the facts even though i've actually posted facts here? lol.

how are these games that you are listing pushing the evelope in gaming, how are they really that different from their 360 counterpart? Those arent new genre you're posted just old ones with different ideas.

you havent posted any facts just your own opinions.

watch the uncharted video again. I'm seeing something you aren't. WAtch teh truck scene as it's chasing him down the alley from the voiceovers to everything incorporated in between. That entire video is a good example of what i'm talking about. The 360 is not capable of decoding those kind of things on the fly like that nor can it do it as seamlessly or with as much detail. It's like playing a movie man. There is so much going on there.

The God of war video is the same thing. Watch how it cuts seamlessly between cutscene and gameplay. It's impressive and the 360 can't do that. I'm talking about actual gameplay and the entire experience here.

I'm not saying the cell is the end all be all here either. Intel is designing processors like the cell down the road that can do everything in between which will be even more impressive as far as being able to apply to the general public and do general tasks. The cell is actually ram strapped as is the 360 as far as what it can achieve. It also can't do certain things a standard cpu can as far as general purpose tasks. But as far as straight game and gameplay it's showing what it is capable of. How this applies to games right now is different and the cell is an impressive piece of work.

Are you really surprised? Sony is dumping huge wads of cash on these games, if they aren't amazing the devs fail at life.

I agree with that. Anyways this thread is funny. I know i sound like i'm all over the ps3 and i sort of am because anyone who watches that god of war video and doesn't want it is insane imo. That game looks crazy.

I remember when i was like 10 and first saw a commodore amiga and what it was able to do as far as graphics and at the time it blew me away and i feel the same way here. The 360 doesn't do that for me. It has great graphics but isn't doing anything revolutionary at all. The ps3 is.

[QUOTE="osan0"]i cant because they are all exclusive.....there is simply no direct way to compare them. there is no evidence to suggest that the 360 could or couldnt do it. all we have when measuring capability of both consoles is multiplats. unless u want to go by dev commentary? but thats about as reliable as some random dude on a forum...there hardly going to admit that there game would work fine on a competitors platform. show me a PS3 playing gears1 and 2 or Halo 3 or forza 2 and 3. u cant...u can only speculate that those games would run on a PS3 (and for the record, yes the PS3 could play those games if properly ported id imagine). ive played all of those games on my PS3 bar uncharted 2 and GOW3 and infamous (since they aint out as far as i know :P) and there great looking games. but theres nothing about them that tells me "wow...there is no way a 360 could run that". MGS4 would need a few discs and wouldnt need to be installed...thats about it. could the 360 run the likes of killzone 2? if i had to guess id say yes. given enough time and money to basically rebuild all the tech for the 360, it could produce those same results. but the bottom line is i cant say with 100% certainty that those games could run on the 360 (just like i cant say that gears 2 could run on a PS3). im not a developer..i dont have a dev kit. all i have to go on is public information and my own judgement. and for the record, u cant say with certainty that Game X couldnt run on the 360 because like me and everyone else on this board...u dont have the kind of in depth knowledge and experience of an industry veteran. like me, u can only guess. quick question though....do u honestly believe that uncharted 1 only used 30-40% of the PS3s processing power?Walker34

I can say that because the style of games being developed solely for the ps3 are very different and it's noticeable and there are trends/aspects to them that apply to th e ps3 and it's hardware. Look at those games i posted and their videos and tell me where i can find games that do those kind of things at that level on the 360. You can't because it can't. I don't care if someone says halo. It doesnt do anything close to that. Mass EFfect tried and does attempt certain things like this although not on the same level, but it's also a chuggy mess on the 360 which furhter proves my point. The 360's hardware xenon can not decode video like that on the fly and incorporate it into gameplay like that(cell processor excels at this) nor does it have the capacity because of blu-ray.

There's a reason why we are seeing these games on the horizon for ps3 and there is nothing coming out for the 360 that do these kind of things. The 360 has maxed its potential.

[QUOTE="Walker34"]

[QUOTE="osan0"]i cant because they are all exclusive.....there is simply no direct way to compare them. there is no evidence to suggest that the 360 could or couldnt do it. all we have when measuring capability of both consoles is multiplats. unless u want to go by dev commentary? but thats about as reliable as some random dude on a forum...there hardly going to admit that there game would work fine on a competitors platform. show me a PS3 playing gears1 and 2 or Halo 3 or forza 2 and 3. u cant...u can only speculate that those games would run on a PS3 (and for the record, yes the PS3 could play those games if properly ported id imagine). ive played all of those games on my PS3 bar uncharted 2 and GOW3 and infamous (since they aint out as far as i know :P) and there great looking games. but theres nothing about them that tells me "wow...there is no way a 360 could run that". MGS4 would need a few discs and wouldnt need to be installed...thats about it. could the 360 run the likes of killzone 2? if i had to guess id say yes. given enough time and money to basically rebuild all the tech for the 360, it could produce those same results. but the bottom line is i cant say with 100% certainty that those games could run on the 360 (just like i cant say that gears 2 could run on a PS3). im not a developer..i dont have a dev kit. all i have to go on is public information and my own judgement. and for the record, u cant say with certainty that Game X couldnt run on the 360 because like me and everyone else on this board...u dont have the kind of in depth knowledge and experience of an industry veteran. like me, u can only guess. quick question though....do u honestly believe that uncharted 1 only used 30-40% of the PS3s processing power?osan0

I can say that because the style of games being developed solely for the ps3 are very different and it's noticeable and there are trends/aspects to them that apply to th e ps3 and it's hardware. Look at those games i posted and their videos and tell me where i can find games that do those kind of things at that level on the 360. You can't because it can't. I don't care if someone says halo. It doesnt do anything close to that. Mass EFfect tried and does attempt certain things like this although not on the same level, but it's also a chuggy mess on the 360 which furhter proves my point. The 360's hardware xenon can not decode video like that on the fly and incorporate it into gameplay like that(cell processor excels at this) nor does it have the capacity because of blu-ray.

There's a reason why we are seeing these games on the horizon for ps3 and there is nothing coming out for the 360 that do these kind of things. The 360 has maxed its potential.

omg dude. you don't get it. you are telling me to do my homework? you do realize encoding and decoding video just doesn't apply to full length movies right it can be incorporated into games and things can be decoded on the fly right? I'm thinking and seeing outside of the box. You are looking at decoding as something completely other than what i'm talking about and seeing what's already been done. What's the point of decoding if it can't be utilized in games? The whole point is that it can and not in the way you are seeing it. There are layers here. That bus flying trough the streets is an example. You can have actually code on top of decoded video and have an spu doing one thing whil;e another is doing something completely else like sound processing or rendering graphics on top of it. People are seeing teh cell as this complex piece of hardware to program for when they don't understand processors like thsi will actually make things easier in the long run. It's actually less complex. You can actually assign various tasks to the spu's and take the load off the other processors. This is why the cell doesnt need an advanced gpu like the 360 does. Nor does it need an advanced ppe as far as games. For a pc sure it would struggle for doing a lot of general purpose tasks but that's not what it's aimed for. It's not in pc's as of yet adn that's what intel is for. For games processing it's awesome by todays standards and farther ahead then anything out there. Developers just didn't understand how to take advantage of it at first or are just lazy and thickheaded and stuck in their conventions. Plus due to the cell being highly specialized the development tools are not there which is understandable and that's sony's job to make it easier on the developers. But this isn't a mass produced chip so it's really not necessary for those tools to be everywhere. People aren't taking this chip to the pc. It's a specialized chip and is perfectly fine for sony's needs. The cell isn't trying to take over the world here. It's just trying to play games right now and currently its more capable then any other chip out there. Yes the cell is limited as far as what it can decode and render on top of in memory, because of it's cache but it's still able to do these things and these things can be part of actual gameplay.

[QUOTE="osan0"][QUOTE="Walker34"]

I can say that because the style of games being developed solely for the ps3 are very different and it's noticeable and there are trends/aspects to them that apply to th e ps3 and it's hardware. Look at those games i posted and their videos and tell me where i can find games that do those kind of things at that level on the 360. You can't because it can't. I don't care if someone says halo. It doesnt do anything close to that. Mass EFfect tried and does attempt certain things like this although not on the same level, but it's also a chuggy mess on the 360 which furhter proves my point. The 360's hardware xenon can not decode video like that on the fly and incorporate it into gameplay like that(cell processor excels at this) nor does it have the capacity because of blu-ray.

There's a reason why we are seeing these games on the horizon for ps3 and there is nothing coming out for the 360 that do these kind of things. The 360 has maxed its potential.

Walker34

omg dude. you don't get it. you are telling me to do my homework? you do realize encoding and decoding video just doesn't apply to full length movies right it can be incorporated into games and things can be decoded on the fly right? I'm thinking and seeing outside of the box. You are looking at decoding as something completely other than what i'm talking about and seeing what's already been done. What's the point of decoding if it can't be utilized in games? The whole point is that it can and not in the way you are seeing it. There are layers here. That bus flying trough the streets is an example. You can have actually code on top of decoded video and have an spu doing one thing whil;e another is doing something completely else like sound processing or rendering graphics on top of it. People are seeing teh cell as this complex piece of hardware to program for when they don't understand processors like thsi will actually make things easier in the long run. It's actually less complex. You can actually assign various tasks to the spu's and take the load off the other processors. This is why the cell doesnt need an advanced gpu like the 360 does. Nor does it need an advanced ppe as far as games. For a pc sure it would struggle for doing a lot of general purpose tasks but that's not what it's aimed for. It's not in pc's as of yet adn that's what intel is for. For games processing it's awesome by todays standards and farther ahead then anything out there. Developers just didn't understand how to take advantage of it at first or are just lazy and thickheaded and stuck in their conventions. Plus due to the cell being highly specialized the development tools are not there which is understandable and that's sony's job to make it easier on the developers. But this isn't a mass produced chip so it's really not necessary for those tools to be everywhere. People aren't taking this chip to the pc. It's a specialized chip and is perfectly fine for sony's needs. The cell isn't trying to take over the world here. It's just trying to play games right now and currently its more capable then any other chip out there. Yes the cell is limited as far as what it can decode and render on top of in memory, because of it's cache but it's still able to do these things and these things can be part of actual gameplay.

aaaaarrrrggggghhhhhh am being attacked by unreadable walls of text

[QUOTE="Walker34"]

[QUOTE="osan0"] i had a look at the uncharted 2 vid. very impressive. reminds me of a more colourful gears with platforming. could be done on the 360 with a bit of work though. its not exactly breaking brand spanking new ground but it should be good crack. and what are u talking about decoding video? there is no decoding of video in games unless its an FMV...and if ure using FMVs to try and prove a point then u need to do ure homework on how a game works and why FMVs are no measure of a consoles performance. u do understand the concept of real time rendering dont you? games dont work like movies...they dont just stream data off the disc at a constant rate. hell u think uncharted is a good example of blu-ray? heres a little dirty secret about blu-ray....its so slow that the devs have to cache the game data to the HDD in the background just to make uncharted playable. god forbid the PS3 didnt have that godsend of a HDD (and yes thats something the 360 can also do...its called HDD caching. halo 3 and oblivion use it on the 360 for example). ure right that xenon doesent have the video decoding capability of the cell.....but that means absolutely nothing for games. they dont decode video..they render textures and audio and calculate geometry and such like. also why are u going back to ME? me is a badly optimized game using the wrong engine and its an RPG. its not suppsoed to provide that cinematic experience like uncharted...thats not what RPGs are about. for some bizarre reason bioware didnt use the HDD caching available to them on the 360 (which would have improved things considerably) so they ran the entire game off the DVD. its no wonder the game chugs along. it would have chugged along just as badly, if not worse (due to the blu-rays drives poor gaming performance), on the PS3 if bioware decided to use the UE3 engine and not use the HDD. im not seeing anything in uncharted 2 anyway that the 360 (and PS3) have not already demonstrated. the physics is nothing special (its very good though), the on the fly animation system was used in games like GTA4 and i believe star wars the force unleashed (i have forgotten the name f the tech). the rippely water effect can be done on the wii (ref the conduit) and oblivion has similar effects...so thats nothing new. the smoke and fire are just ure usual particle effects.....theres loads of games on the 360 that do nice splosions. maybe u could point out things that the 360 couldnt do. for the life of me...i cant see it. uncharted 2 looks great...but it doesent look impossible on the 360. as for why were not seeing these cinematic type games on 360? well the likes of gears are pretty cinematic and halo3 is basically a story driven game with a FPS slapped on the side. so we have seen a few. things are quiet on the 360 front in terms of games though and MS have made some very strange decisions regarding first party development on the 360. i highly doubt its because the 360 is tapped out though.....theres no evidence to support that. it seems more plausible that were seeing those types of games on the PS3 because these are the types of games that sony are very good at and that sonys devs like to make. going back to the PS2, GOW 1 and 2 and the likes of SOTC were also very cinematic and yet they were running on the weakest hardware last gen. which can lead me to another conclusion...u just prefer sonys first party games over MSs (and probably nintys). u like the way they go about their business. u prefer sonys style. thats fine...nothing wrong with that. i prefer the way ninty approach their games...its just personal preference. but that doesent make them inherently superior to games on other platforms. and that has nothing to do with hardware and everything to do with the developers. its them that diserve the credit..not the hardware. i would be confident in saying that if naughty god wanted uncharted 2 on the 360 then they would get uncharted 2 on the 360 and it would look and play as well as on the PS3.p0g0theclown

omg dude. you don't get it. you are telling me to do my homework? you do realize encoding and decoding video just doesn't apply to full length movies right it can be incorporated into games and things can be decoded on the fly right? I'm thinking and seeing outside of the box. You are looking at decoding as something completely other than what i'm talking about and seeing what's already been done. What's the point of decoding if it can't be utilized in games? The whole point is that it can and not in the way you are seeing it. There are layers here. That bus flying trough the streets is an example. You can have actually code on top of decoded video and have an spu doing one thing whil;e another is doing something completely else like sound processing or rendering graphics on top of it. People are seeing teh cell as this complex piece of hardware to program for when they don't understand processors like thsi will actually make things easier in the long run. It's actually less complex. You can actually assign various tasks to the spu's and take the load off the other processors. This is why the cell doesnt need an advanced gpu like the 360 does. Nor does it need an advanced ppe as far as games. For a pc sure it would struggle for doing a lot of general purpose tasks but that's not what it's aimed for. It's not in pc's as of yet adn that's what intel is for. For games processing it's awesome by todays standards and farther ahead then anything out there. Developers just didn't understand how to take advantage of it at first or are just lazy and thickheaded and stuck in their conventions. Plus due to the cell being highly specialized the development tools are not there which is understandable and that's sony's job to make it easier on the developers. But this isn't a mass produced chip so it's really not necessary for those tools to be everywhere. People aren't taking this chip to the pc. It's a specialized chip and is perfectly fine for sony's needs. The cell isn't trying to take over the world here. It's just trying to play games right now and currently its more capable then any other chip out there. Yes the cell is limited as far as what it can decode and render on top of in memory, because of it's cache but it's still able to do these things and these things can be part of actual gameplay.

aaaaarrrrggggghhhhhh am being attacked by unreadable walls of text

sorry lol. But read what i'm saying because it makes way too much sense.

i dont agree with you as at the moment there isnt anything on the ps3 that isnt possible on the 360, yes the 360 version may not look as good.but the ps3isn't pushing gaming in new and strange directions, just prettier ways of playing older genres.

Killzone 2 shows off what the cell processor is capable of i guess.

It sure felt like a flowing ingame movie.

No one can argue that it doesnt look good.

The cell has achieved what it wanted, i think it can do more though, time will tell.

Killzone 2 shows off what the cell processor is capable of i guess.

It sure felt like a flowing ingame movie.

No one can argue that it doesnt look good.

The cell has achieved what it wanted, i think it can do more though, time will tell.

g0ddyX

As I said before, hardware and graphics are only part of the equation.

why is this still goin on here on these forums. cell is all about number crunching that is it. and of course as a result it is a pain to program for since as you may have noticed all of the ps3 "system sellers" or "xbox killers" are released 3-4 years after launch(also note that some of these were in devellopement way before release) and in the end it costs more to dev for it(assuming its not a port and they actually try to use the "potential" of ps3),

and believe me, i'm sure that devs can do the same thing or very simalar on the 360 if they spent thh same amount of resources on a game for it. but guess what. devs are in for the money, if they decide that make a game a little better will cost alot and loose them money they wont do it. and also notice that all the games you metion are almost all 1st/2nd party devs, in other words sony is backing them. sony wants to sell consoles not just games, unlike 3rd parties where they only make money off the game itself, you ever wonder why ps3 version of multiplats are generally a little worse visually and sometimes worse playability? third parties wont put more money on the line then they have to, sure they could make it look/play 100% the same but if its gonna cost another 5 million and take 2 months, they wonts. but sony will as you can see.

also comparing cell to intel/amd is a joke just so you know. the reson that they dont is because a cpu for a pc is for what a cpu ios actually used for, general processing, and also the fact that they know that if someone wants to do some of hte things you mention they will have some kind of kickass gpu to do the gpu stuff. and intel/amd have processors that blow the cell out of the water, its just not out for the public yet(same for gpus) intel/amd have the time to milk products untill they are affordable and profitable, unlike ps3 that sells at a loss and cant wait to bring down production costs. so believe what you want to belive if cell is your god good for you, but dont go misleading everyone els with your "logic"

edit: god, don't you just love when formatting goes away

why is this still goin on here on these forums. cell is all about number crunching that is it. and of course as a result it is a pain to program for since as you may have noticed all of the ps3 "system sellers" or "xbox killers" are released 3-4 years after launch(also note that some of these were in devellopement way before release) and in the end it costs more to dev for it(assuming its not a port and they actually try to use the "potential" of ps3), and believe me, i'm sure that devs can do the same thing or very simalar o nthe 360 if they spent teh same amount of resources on a game for it. but guess what. devs are in for the money, if they decide that make a game a little better will cost alot and loose them money they wont do it. and also notice that all the games you metion are almost all 1st/2nd party devs, in other words sony is backing them. sony wants to sell consoles not just games, unlike 3rd parties where they only make money off the game itself, you ever wonder why ps3 version of multiplats are generally a little worse visually and sometimes worse playability? third parties wont put more money on the line then they have to, sure they could make it look/play 100% the same but if its gonna cost another 5 million and take 2 months, they wonts. but sony will as you can see. also comparing cell to intel/amd is a joke just so you know. the reson that they dont is because a cpu for a pc is for what a cpu ios actually used for, general processing, and also the fact that they know that if someone wants to do some of hte things you mention they will have some kind of kickass gpu to do the gpu stuff. and intel/amd have processors that blow the cell out of the water, its just not out for the public yet(same for gpus) intel/amd have the time to milk products untill they are affordable and profitable, unlike ps3 that sells at a loss and cant wait to bring down production costs. so believe what you want to belive if cell is your god good for you, but dont go misleading everyone els with your "logic"adman66

lol. yes the cell is all about number crunching and that is it? Great logic. Speaking of misleading people. Second the ps3 isn't my god. I'm just a smart person who understands how these things work thank you. Why is it the people who resort to assumptions and insults usually have the worst logic of all? Would you like to disprove what i'm saying? Other than saying the ps3 is all about number crunching and thats it and the cell is my god somehow?